Trump DOJ Announces Bump-Stock Ban, Confiscation - What’s Next?

On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), regarding bump stocks.

The final rule clarifies that the definition of “machinegun” in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

The rule will go into effect 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

A bump stock is a simple device that attaches to semi-automatic rifles, which normally shoot one round per trigger-pull, to speed up the firing rate by harnessing the gun's recoil to "bump" the trigger faster than the shooter would be able to with his or her finger.

A senior official said, "We anticipate that the general public will be compliant with the law.” "To the extent someone chooses not to comply with the law, we will treat this as we do with all firearms offenses. We will prioritize our resources to maximize public safety, focusing on those that pose the greatest threat. We will enforce the statute based on the circumstances of the individual case as we do with all firearms law."

The rule reclassifies bump-fire stocks as machine gun parts and the Firearm Owners Protection Act makes the possession of any machine guns or parts used to convert firearms into machine guns illegal unless they were registered before 1986, which is well before bump stocks were invented.

This makes it impossible to legally register a bump stock under the new rule; therefore, the DOJ said, anyone who legally purchased one at any point will be required to either destroy them or surrender them to law enforcement.

When DOJ was asked if they had any plans on how to enforce the new ban, officials said they would consider cases as they come up.

"We have no plans to go door to door nor do we have the resources," a senior official told reporters. "The Department of Justice primarily relies on voluntary compliance by citizens. Most firearms owners are law-abiding citizens. We anticipate compliance with the law. Those who choose not to comply with the law we will investigate on a case-by-case basis. There is not a blanket plan here."

Let me get this straight - Law abiding citizens turning over illegal weapons to make the Country safer from non-law abiding citizens. Isn’t that thought process an oxymoron?

The DOJ was also asked why they believe the confiscation of bump-stocks without compensation is in compliance with the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on taking lawful property from Americans without fair compensation.

The DOJ officials referred reporters to the rule's explanation. The rule states the government can take previously legal property so long as it is dangerous and taking it serves a public safety interest.

"The Department does not agree that classifying bump-stock-type devices as machineguns results in the unlawful taking of property ‘for public use, without just compensation,'" the rule said. "It is well established that ‘the nature of the [government's] action is critical in takings analysis.' The Department's action here, classifying bump-stock-type devices as machineguns subject to the NFA and GCA, does not have the nature of a taking. A restriction on ‘contraband or noxious goods' and dangerous articles by the government to protect public safety and welfare ‘has not been regarded as a taking for public use for which compensation must be paid.'

Gun-rights groups are already taking legal action.

The National Rifle Association pointed out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had previously determined bump-stocks to be legal and gun owners purchased them under that understanding. The gun-rights group said the attorney general should have allowed those gun owners amnesty from the new rule.

"We are disappointed that this final rule fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans who relied on prior ATF determinations when lawfully acquiring these devices," Jennifer Baker, an NRA spokesperson, told the Washington Free Beacon. "As we recommended to ATF in our comments on the proposed rule, Congress made it possible for the attorney general to provide amnesty for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. The attorney general should have exercised that authority to provide a period of amnesty under this rule."

Gun Owners of America promised legal action, stating the rule is a violation of federal law.

‘As written, this case has important implications for gun owners since, in the coming days, an estimated half a million bump-stock owners will have the difficult decision of either destroying or surrendering their valuable property—or else risk felony prosecution," Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said in the statement. "ATF's claim that it can rewrite congressional law cannot pass legal muster. Agencies are not free to rewrite laws under the guise of ‘interpretation' of a statute, especially where the law's meaning is clear."

The Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Madison Society Foundation filed a complaint in federal court against the new rule as well as a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to block enforcement of the bump-stock ban.

"In its rulemaking, the Trump administration is attempting to abuse the system, ignore the statutes passed by the Congress, and thumb its nose at the Constitution without regard to the liberty and property rights of Americans. That is unacceptable and dangerous," Adam Kraut, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "It is beyond comprehension that the government would seek to establish a precedent that it can arbitrarily redefine terms and subject thousands of people to serious criminal liability and the loss of property."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has previously said that she "certainly hopes" a ban on "bump stocks" will open the door to additional gun control actions.

"They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so," she told a reporter at a news conference.

Pelosi said Democrats want to push for enhanced background checks on gun purchases.

Last year, when the Democrats pushed for a Bump stock ban, Trump tweeted below:

“Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!”

Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!

Obama did nothing because he wanted re-election and that was more important for his ultimate agenda, in part, to bifurcate our Country to the point of no repair.

Make no mistake, Democrats have always wanted gun control. The more Laws added to our 2nd Amendment, the easier it will be to dismantle it completely in the future.

They will tell you, “we want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people”, but who defines “mentally ill”. Someone that had to take medicine for PTSD for dealing with the aftermath of fighting for our Country, someone who took medicine for depression from the loss of family or rape or traumatic experience at one time in their life?

Who defines “mental”, Democrats? Who is not biased? This is rabbit hole we, as Americans, are not willing to go down.

This is about gun control but not how the liberals interpret it. Democrats want complete control and in order to do that, they need our guns. Liberals just follow suit because they are a bunch of brainwashed followers.

The left are stating the “Trump has already turned the table on mental health!”

“Obama’s Social Security gun ban opened the door for beneficiaries to be investigated if they were under mental duress and needed help with their finances.

A beneficiary who had his check sent to a third party could catch the Social Security Administration’s attention, be investigated, and turned over to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to be barred from gun purchases.

This not only violated the beneficiaries’ Second Amendment but their Due Process rights as well. It meant that a recently-widowed 85-year-old grandmother could be denied the right to buy a gun for self-defense because her temporary mental anguish required her to get help with finances.

He described Social Security beneficiaries as a “vulnerable group,” one which was easy to target but not one for which evidence suggests a propensity for heinous crimes. And he pointed out that going after beneficiaries based on the fact there is a mental problem that requires them to get help managing their money is an especially weak approach.

Swanson summed up the ban, writing, “Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI’s background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.” He explained that “the mental health conditions in question might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia,” and then pointed to academic work showing that “the vast majority of mentally ill individuals” are not violent or suicidal.”

Swanson wrote:

“When the government takes away people’s rights, usually they have a hearing, a chance to contest the proceedings, and legal representation. None of those is provided when a person is assigned a money manager by the Social Security Administration, nor would it be feasible to do so routinely. But when such a determination is later leveraged for a totally different purpose — suspension of a person’s Second Amendment rights — the lack of process becomes a legitimate civil rights concern.”

Ask yourself this, does exposure to violent movies or video games make kids more aggressive?

Experts do agree that no single factor can cause a nonviolent person to act aggressively.

Children exposed to multiple risk factors which can include substance abuse, aggression, conflict at home, and many others, and also consume violent media are more likely to behave aggressively.

“The public discourse about media violence tends to flare up whenever there is an extremely violent incident perpetrated by a young offender. In 2012, there were two incidents in particular that garnered national attention:

“In July, 24-year-old James Holmes walked into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where the new Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises was playing. Seemingly dressed as a character from the Batman movies, with his hair dyed bright red and carrying multiple firearms, Holmes threw tear gas canisters into the crowd and began shooting. Some in the audience thought it was part of a publicity stunt for the PG-13 movie, a film that San Francisco Chronicle movie critic Mick LaSalle later called “a wallow in nonstop cruelty and destruction, a film that was anti-life” (LaSalle, 2013). Fifty-eight people were injured, and 12 were killed.”

“Six months later, on December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and opened fire, killing 20 young children and six adults. Amid media reports that Lanza was an avid video game player — and disclosures that major gun manufacturers were receiving lucrative promotional and marketing partnerships through tie-ins with video game studios (Meier & Martin, 2013) — a neighboring town launched a video game “buy-back” program offering participants $25 gift cards in exchange for their violent video games.”

Parents need to get involved, do your research about TV shows, movies, or games before your kids watch, play, and interact with them.

Don’t let the internet, video games, or television be the babysitter, the friend, or something to pass the time.

Credit: BoredPanda Democrats have been after guns for as long as I can remember. They will spin it however they need, to get the left to agree with them that this is about protecting us. We already know they don’t care about protecting Americans.

We demand our Freedom, our Constitutional Rights as Americans, and we demand that those Rights not be bartered or Amended simply because someone’s feelings are hurt or someone has decided for an entire Country that they know what is good for all of us!

The 2nd Amendment was written by our forefathers so that we would be protected from tyranny! As it stands now, some states have elected to revoke the 2nd Amendment which is against our Constitutional Rights. Once Government gets one small law in place, they start working on another one.

These are our Rights and not up for debate. Murders have occurred throughout history. Taking our Rights away will not stop murderers. It will only allow more carnage, as we will not be able to defend ourselves.

We don't have "Constitutional rights". We have God given rights and the Constitution places limits on the Government, to prevent them from taking those rights. If you are going to write stories, involving rights, maybe you should at least know the basics first.